Newsletter

Political Notes: Today, this column is about this column

Today’s a bit different: I’m writing about the process of writing about politics — especially this column.

Its title, Political Notebook, describes what it was nine years ago.

It stitched together snippets about prospective candidacies, polls and fundraisers, as well as little anecdotes. When I took the politics beat in 2004, I gradually reshaped it into an analytical essay.

I don’t tell readers what to think, but try to help them better understand how politics and government work — or often don’t.

I mix in yarns intended to amuse — such as the weird form letter I got from Dick Cheney or my jog with California Gov. Jerry Brown. But I always return to attempts to inform.

They involve evaluations, but not over whether a given candidate, party or policy is good or bad.

Instead, I try to explain trends, assess whether a proposal will work or dissect politicians’ claims about polls or their election prospects.

Sometimes I note that, even though folks may think something is a great idea, it will fly politically about as well as a streamlined brick.

Example: Republican insistence on protecting upper-income folks from tax hikes. That might or might not be fair or economically sound.

But when sacrifices are being demanded from everyone else, it’s a non-starter as a presidential election issue. And an invitation to get hammered.

On the other hand, a frequent counter argument by Democrats might fly politically but flunks Economics 101.

They often say soaking the rich will go a long way toward balancing the federal budget. Sounds good, but it won’t come close. Whether intended to or not, the claim offers those who make it a way to avoid tough choices.

People are free to disagree — and often do. But I figure triggering spirited but civil discussion is a form of public service.

Of course, there’s a problem for anyone who writes such stuff in columns and also writes daily news stories.

The more you push the envelope in columns, the more likely news sources and others are to think you’re on the take or have a grudge against someone.

Some people, such as the late David Broder, have managed to write insightful — and sometimes hard-hitting — columns and lucid, fair news stories. And they’ve kept their reputations for fairness largely intact.

Anyway, Broder was one of my role models.

But what — and how — you write isn’t the only thing that can affect your credibility.

Where your column appears in the paper matters, too.

Even if it’s laid out like a personal column with a logo and a picture or if it’s labeled “analysis,” there’s more fallout if it runs in a news section.

I recall something I wrote about on the first 2004 presidential debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry. I noted — among other things — the obvious: Bush got clobbered.

The paper opted to run that assessment on Page 1. That seemed flattering at the time but drew howls of outrage from readers.

I don’t regret a word I wrote, but agree with those who insisted that such a blunt assessment should have run somewhere else.

That’s why I was happy to see this column recently shifted to the “Viewpoints” section that precedes the Sunday editorial pages.

As I continue to cover political news, it’s still prudent to activate snark filters when I do columns.

Of course, sometimes I don’t. But even when I do, of course, some folks don’t like what they read.

But now, at least, they won’t mistake it for something that’s purported to be a news story. Of course, some readers don’t know the difference — or don’t care.

They know what they like — or don’t like.

In the end, all you can do is the best you can.

Senior reporter Larry Peterson covers politics for the Savannah Morning News. He can be reached at 912-652-0367 or at larry.peterson@savannahnow.com.